Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:37:28.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duhem, Quine, and the Multiplicity of Scientific Tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Yuri Balashov
Yuri Balashov*
Affiliation:
History and Philosophy of Science Program and Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, History and Philosophy of Science Program, 309 O'Shaughnessy Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Duhem's and Quine's holistic theses, when properly understood, allow methodologically responsible ways of resolving a conflict between a theoretical system and experience; they only deny the possibility of doing it in an epistemically persuasive way. By developing a “string” model of scientific tests I argue that the pattern of interaction between the elements of a theoretical system arising in response to multiple adverse data can be helpful in locating a “weak spot” in it. Combining this model with antiholistic arguments of Popper, Greenwood, and Lakatos significantly reinforces their joint power.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 608 - 628
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am indebted to J. T. Cushing, G. Gale, J. Leslie, E. McMullin, and P. Quinn for many helpful comments, and to an anonymous referee for insightful criticism and suggestions. Special thanks are due to S. V. Illarionov for stimulating discussions of the D-thesis.

References

Ariew, R. (1984), “The Duhem Thesis”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35: 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, H. (1957), “Some Philosophical Problems in Cosmology”, in Mace, C. A., (ed.), C. A. Mace, London: Allen Unwin, pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
Bondi, H. (1990), “The Cosmological Scene 1945–1952”, in Bertotti, B., Balbinot, R., Bergia, S., and Messina, A., (eds.), B. Bertotti, R. Balbinot, S. Bergia, and A. Messina, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 189–196.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. ([1906] 1954), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Reprint. Translated by Wiener, P. P. Originally published as La Théorie Physique: Son Objet, et sa Structure (Paris: Marcel Rivière & Cie). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwood, J. D. (1990), “Two Dogmas of Neo-Empiricism: The ‘Theory-Informity’ of Observation and the Duhem-Quine Thesis”, Philosophy of Science 57: 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S., (ed.), (1976), Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, F. (1948), “A New Model for the Expanding Universe”, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108: 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kragh, H. (1993), “Steady State Theory”, in Hetherington, N. S., (ed.), N. S. Hetherington, London: Garland Publishing, pp. 629–636.Google Scholar
Krips, H. (1982), “Epistemological Holism: Duhem or Quine?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 13: 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978), Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. ([1729] 1962), Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by A. Motte and F. Cajori. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
North, J. D. (1965), The Measure of the Universe: A History of Modern Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963), Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1953), From A Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. and Ullian, J. S. (1978), The Web of Belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Smith, R. W. (1982), The Expanding Universe: Astronomy's “Great Debate” 1900–1931. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vuillemin, J. (1987), “On Duhem's and Quine's Theses”, in Hahn, L. E. and Schilpp, P. A., (eds.), L. E. Hahn and P. A. Schilpp, La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 595–622.Google Scholar